This hardly sounds unreasonable, but think about it the Argentines were so confident that Britain would not use an obviously decisive, war-winning weapon, that they decided to attack under the slimmest of conventional margins, despite lacking any clear guarantee of extended deterrence from another nuclear power. Why did Argentina pick a fight with a country that had nuclear weapons? In short, Buenos Aires realized that the chance of Britain using such weapons in a territorial dispute was remote. This left the Royal Navy with no carrier-borne fighter aircraft at all, a situation that will remain until HMS Queen Elizabeth (presumably with F-35Bs) enters service later this decade. Indeed, the RAF successfully offered the RN’s Harriers up for budgetary sacrifice in 2010. The RAF focuses on the role played by its long-range Vulcan bombers, de-emphasizing the importance of the Harriers. The role played by the Harriers continues to form the core of a nasty historical dispute between the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. The F-35B concept, designed to operate either from small carriers or from flat-decked amphibious assault ships, stems in large part from the Falklands experience. The success of the Harrier, in many minds, confirmed the value of the Sea Control Ship, a small carrier that lacked the capacity to launch fixed wing jet aircraft but that could nevertheless support an expeditionary task force. Operating from HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible, the Harriers had a powerful effect on Argentine decision-making, deterring them from launching airstrikes during the day, and creating significant problems for Argentina’s short ranged air superiority aircraft. The performance-constrained carrier fighters provided the only possible air cover for the British task force, given that the Royal Navy had retired its last conventional carrier in 1979. Lacking local bases, the Royal Navy relied on the Siddeley Hawker Harrier, which turned in a legendary performance against Argentine aircraft. This state of affairs is reminiscent of a host of other conflicts, in which the law sets the terms without charting a useful settlement.ĭuring the war, the Argentine Air Force wielded not only gravity-bombs but also French-made Exocet anti-ship missiles to deadly effect, sinking and damaging several British warships. Debates over the law continue to structure how we look at the islands, but apparently cannot determine which country will control the islands in the future. These same claims continue to find little support in the United Kingdom, with most European countries remaining distinctly on the sidelines. In any case, Argentina’s draped-in-anti-colonial-rhetoric claims regularly win the support of most Latin American countries, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the Argentina population. The United Kingdom focuses on the self-determination point, although it does not apply the principle with consistency to all international disputes. It’s unclear how much this matters, however, as states regularly ignore the preferences of 1600 citizens when it suits them to do so. One thing we know is that virtually no one currently living in the Falklands wants to be Argentine. The issues remain of interest to many other countries because of the plethora of conflicts over the historical ownership of disputed islands. The meat of Argentina’s claim lies mostly in the reality that the islands are far closer to Buenos Aires than to the United Kingdom, which comports with a variety of international obligations associated with maritime governance. Without delving too deeply into the claims and counter-claims, the United Kingdom probably has the stronger argument on balance, although London’s periodic disinterest in governing the islands has helped keep Argentine hopes alive. The legal issues associated with ownership of the Falklands remain turgid.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |